There is no productive 2D example provided that show the superiority of this method over regular gaussian smoothing. A simple combination of Gaussian and Median filtering provides better denoising than what is proposed:

It is very likely that the authors generalization of using 8 point neighbourhoods is valid, but if so it changes the valid range of the parameters, and thus one cant easily recreate the results of the original Perona-Malik paper. If a simple example was provided that showed how the 2D method actually outperforms gaussian blurring, then I might be inclined to read the secondary paper referenced.

the interpretation of the kappa parameter is nicely given in weickerts book: http://www.lpi.tel.uva.es/muitic/pim/docus/anisotropic_diffusion.pdf, chapter 1, figure 1.1, b... (its called lambda there)

I cant get that interpretation to work for me here. Whats wrong? How can i strengthen the edges in the image using this, while blurring along isolines!?

Again, if only a positive example was provided for the 2D case, this might all be cleared up.

thanx fr the code it is easy to understand bt in the perona-malik paper divergence is taken for the diffusion process nd in dis code diff-image is calculated in some different way. can u plz explain m dis?

I have a question:at the example in Anisodiff2D you wrote this line: s = phantom(512) + randn(512).The number 512 is about memory wright?But what exactly?And how i can use another image?Thank you in advance.

for the 2D case: why all the flux from 8 directions are summed up? The paper suggests to use flus(north)-flus(south) and so on. There at least is 'minus' instead 'plus' all the way around. Could you explain me why?

If you go back to Kovesi's code, he did not use imfilter or conv, he computed the differences by basic vector subtractions. When I replace the imfilter to vector subtractions to compute nablaW/E, then I get smoothing only at the noisy regions, which is the expected result.

Nice work. Though I think the examples could be a bit more helpful. For example, setting KAPPA = 0.2 or so, rather than KAPPA = 30, in the examples would show the anisotropic behavior more clearly. It took me a while to figure out that I needed to bring KAPPA way down from 30 before I saw results similar to Fig. 11 in the Perona and Malik paper.

Thanks for the code! it is very clearly written. For the 2D case in your code it is defined dx,dy and dd. What's the purpose of this? I didn't see it in the paper (have only read Perona). Also delta (lambda in the paper) suggest up to 1/4. Is it because you're using extra neighbours for the implementation?

Contrary to spatially filtering the signal with a Gaussian, anisotropic diffusion doesn't smooth across the edges.

A recommend the following procedures to clarify your doubt relatively to the anisotropic implementation:

- run the example of anisodiff1D(.) [the visual effect of anisotropic filtering is more evident when applied to a 1D signal]

- instead of using a Gaussian with a small sigma try a higher one, e.g.,
hG = fspecial('gaussian',31,9); % sigma = 9;
Who will see that even if you increase the number of diffusion iterations the edges will prevail, contrary to the smoothing provided by the Gaussian filter.

Another advice: try reading and understanding the code with greater attention before rating it. The references to the articles aren´t there for nothing you now! :P